tgbpfandomcom-20200214-history
Balance
Balance is how classes and mechanics interact with each other, and how powerful they are in relation to each other. Balance: a Basic Guide Balance is a tricky concept, because it must simultaneously make each aspect of the game as useful as possible without becoming necessity, as well as making the game fun. Below are several types of balance systems used by modern designers. Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up The first decision made in balancing is who to balance the game for. The two main ideologies are Top-Down and Bottom-Up. Top-Down Top-Down balance is the idea that balance should first and foremost be focused around the highest level of play, which is often the competitive or "pro scene." All levels of play below the highest level will then receive a balanced meta through a kind of trickle down system. Because all the weapons will be fair and equal at the highest level, they all have the potential to be just as balanced in the gameplay below. This is effective from the top down to the mid level of play, but the lowest level of play often undervalues mechanics and classes that require teamwork to reach their full potential, leaving them feeling weak, while leaving any mechanics or classes they counter feeling unusually strong. This feeling of imbalance diminishes as players become more skilled and work with others, but it usually increases the learning curve of the game by a small amount, which may be off-putting to newer players. Bottom-Up Bottom-Up balance is the inverse of Top-Down balance. This idea is that balancing for the lowest levels of play is most important, since that is where the majority of players are, and that is where the most diversity of play is found. This way of thinking lowers the learning curve and makes the game attractive to newcomers. The advantage of this system is that all mechanics will feel equal in strength at the lowest level, where most players are. However, As players improve and become more competent at the game, mechanics and classes that were once balanced will become either easily counterable, or broken and far too powerful when exploited properly. Another issue with Bottom-Up balance is that many games with this system fail to differentiate the different weapons or classes with unique gameplay, preferring to make multiple clones of one thing to "increase customization" without actually changing the game. Finally, any difference in skill between players during a public game become quickly realized as a slightly more skilled player may use mechanics in ways for which they were not intended to become much more powerful, leading to "pub-stomps" or one-sided gameplay. Few games, if any, use purely one system of thought, but most subscribe to one theory or the other, only deviating to fix gross errors. This wiki generally assumes a top-down balancing strategy, since it provides fewer problems, and focuses on the potential of each mechanic and class rather than the surface use. After deciding who to balance for, the question remains how to balance the game itself. Below are a few examples of systems used in modern games. Balance Systems Rock-Paper-Scissors one of the simplest systems of balancing, and one found in almost every game is the rock-paper-scissors model. Made most famous by the Halo franchise, the RPS system is sometimes also called the "halo system" or circular balancing. In this system, each class or weapon is very strong against certain ones, and very weak against the same number of others. Using the game Team Fortress 2 as an example, the Demoman is very powerful against Engineers and their buildings, but has a hard time facing the Scout in direct combat. The Scout, in turn, has difficulty facing an Engineer and his sentry. This type of balancing allows each player to decide what class or weapon is most useful in each situation. This system of balance is useful on the small scale, and is often used in conjunction with the other balance systems to allow for greater variety in games. Sidegrade Theory The most commonly accepted balancing system in modern games is what I would like to call “sidegrade theory.” This system provides a set of classes or weapons that are considered the standard for an archetype, and all other members of the archetype are considered specialists, not as good in every situation, but better in specific moments in the game. This allows for a two stage balancing: first, make sure every member of the archetype is either weaker or the same strength as the standard; second, balance each archetype against each other as fits the style of game created. Class based shooters tend to set their archetypes as separate classes either through class customization, or through making multiple unique characters within a certain class. Upgrade Theory A competitive theory to Sidegrade Theory is the unlocking and use of direct upgrades. This system is borrowed from RPGs and is used in games such as the Destiny series where progression in a story mode can directly affect multiplayer gameplay. This system is not generally recommended, since it leads to a "grind to win" or "pay to win" system, in which those who put more time or more money into the game are favored with better equipment or characters than those just starting the game. Unlock or Full Armory? After deciding how to balance a game, the decision must be made: should all classes and customization be available at the start of the game, or should players have to work to unlock them? This is a matter of preference for the developer, but does have some impact on the balancing system used. Both systems favor a sidegrade style of balance, but upgrade theory specifically requires that basic versions of each class or weapon be available to every player, otherwise the game would be far too inaccessible to new players to sustain a player population. Unlocking items is an excellent way to encourage players to return to the game, but care must be taken that what is unlocked isn't unfair to those who don't have access to it.